6 ms·

I don't get why it's a good argument to say that something exists for hundreds of years. Thinking about flat earth was also thought for hundreds of years.

aarpmcgee 7y ago
I agree with you. It is not a convincing argument for me either.
scrollaway 7y ago
> Thinking about flat earth was also thought for hundreds of years And round even longer :) I didn't say it's a good argument to keep things that way, I meant to say that the naming itself doesn't mean women are excluded. A gentlemen's agreement is a well-understood term, and if you start saying something gender-neutral such as "gentleperson's agreement", you may sound more inclusive, but you're also less likely to be understood, especially by non-native-speakers.
- supportlocal4h 7y ago
  What about..."agreement"? Or just "agree"? "Can we have a gentleman's agreement to" -> "Can we agree to" Fewer words. Well understood. Any inclusivity issues? Ah, the life of an editor.
  - scrollaway 7y ago
    Yes, OP could have just said "can we agree to", and in their case that would have worked fine. But I hope you're not proposing to hard-swap "gentlemen's agreement" for "agreement", because those are two very different things.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - toastal 7y ago
    I can agree with that. I went with the idiom that came to mind and the connotation/image that I have associated with it, not really considering inclusion. Exclusion wasn't a goal, but despite less 'flavor' (with flavor being subjective and not necessary), "Can we agree to" is probably a better choice.
    - supportlocal4h 7y ago
      FWIW, I didn't have any problem with the original wording. Then somebody pointed out it's exclusivity and I thought, "Hmmm". Then all the gender contortions made me wince. I almost didn't post because I didn't want to be part of that. For the record, my post was not an effort for social equity. It was English golfing. I'm sure there are better golfers.
thrwaway69 7y ago
Are they comparable? Earth is not flat remains static and will for a very long time while languages don't. Though, change to languages are opposed and pushed for political reasons so it's no surprise to form an argument that relies on age of something to justify it similarly how people need political atmosphere to justify the change instead of solely arguing on the basis of descriptiveness or clarification.
Tainnor 7y ago
Nitpick: If you're referring to the middle ages, nobody there (well, no scholarly person at least) actually thought the earth was flat. That the earth is round was known since antiquity. The big dispute was about whether the earth was at the centre of the universe; heliocentrism was contradicting the church's doctrine at the time. Somehow this ended up in popular culture as an argument about the earth being flat which it never was. Now of course, it's entirely possible that earlier cultures, before the Greeks, were under the impression the world was round... or any other shape.

aarpmcgee 7y ago

I agree with you. It is not a convincing argument for me either.

scrollaway 7y ago

> Thinking about flat earth was also thought for hundreds of years And round even longer :) I didn't say it's a good argument to keep things that way, I meant to say that the naming itself doesn't mean women are excluded. A gentlemen's agreement is a well-understood term, and if you start saying something gender-neutral such as "gentleperson's agreement", you may sound more inclusive, but you're also less likely to be understood, especially by non-native-speakers.

supportlocal4h 7y ago
What about..."agreement"? Or just "agree"? "Can we have a gentleman's agreement to" -> "Can we agree to" Fewer words. Well understood. Any inclusivity issues? Ah, the life of an editor.
- scrollaway 7y ago
  Yes, OP could have just said "can we agree to", and in their case that would have worked fine. But I hope you're not proposing to hard-swap "gentlemen's agreement" for "agreement", because those are two very different things.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- toastal 7y ago
  I can agree with that. I went with the idiom that came to mind and the connotation/image that I have associated with it, not really considering inclusion. Exclusion wasn't a goal, but despite less 'flavor' (with flavor being subjective and not necessary), "Can we agree to" is probably a better choice.
  - supportlocal4h 7y ago
    FWIW, I didn't have any problem with the original wording. Then somebody pointed out it's exclusivity and I thought, "Hmmm". Then all the gender contortions made me wince. I almost didn't post because I didn't want to be part of that. For the record, my post was not an effort for social equity. It was English golfing. I'm sure there are better golfers.

thrwaway69 7y ago

Are they comparable? Earth is not flat remains static and will for a very long time while languages don't. Though, change to languages are opposed and pushed for political reasons so it's no surprise to form an argument that relies on age of something to justify it similarly how people need political atmosphere to justify the change instead of solely arguing on the basis of descriptiveness or clarification.

Tainnor 7y ago

Nitpick: If you're referring to the middle ages, nobody there (well, no scholarly person at least) actually thought the earth was flat. That the earth is round was known since antiquity. The big dispute was about whether the earth was at the centre of the universe; heliocentrism was contradicting the church's doctrine at the time. Somehow this ended up in popular culture as an argument about the earth being flat which it never was. Now of course, it's entirely possible that earlier cultures, before the Greeks, were under the impression the world was round... or any other shape.